Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Fraser, Mr. Lemieux, Ms. Scott and Ms. Tremblay.
In speaking about renewing the Action Plan for the Official Languages, the Minister, Ms. Verner, mentioned at one point that existing services would at least be maintained. We will see; we hope this will be true. We are also hoping there will be some improvements.
Generally speaking, Commissioner, we are all working for the common good: namely, allowing people whose mother tongue is French, for example, to still be able to speak it at the end of their lives and to live their whole lives being able to develop in that language and that culture. And this applies to their families and offspring as well. The same goes for people whose mother tongue is English. We all agree on that.
Nevertheless, there are some situations and some expenditures with respect to the public service that give rise to some questions. Let me give you an example. This is a quote from an article that appeared in Le Devoir on January 28, just recently. I will read it to you:
In her report, Ms. Fraser made particular mention of the case of someone in the commissioner's office who met the language requirements of her position, but who was nonetheless sent to France to take training in French for one month, in July 2006. Ruth McEwen, the Executive Director of Corporate Services, paid for her stay herself and her plane ticket to Bordeaux, but taxpayers picked up the tab for her tuition ($757.61), and for her return flight ($2,358.63).
I know you are not responsible for that, but how could the action plan be focused—I know it has a number of components—to avoid a recurrence of situations of this type?
Before turning the floor over to you, I would also mention the case of a francophone in Aylmer who wanted to improve his English at the end of his career. He was not allowed to do this because his skills were considered good enough. So you see the type of inconsistencies that occur. I would like to hear your comments.